When to use which dimensionless number

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of dimensionless numbers in the context of low gravity capillary driven flows, specifically comparing the Reynolds number and the Ohnesorge number. Participants explore the significance of these numbers in relation to surface tension and inertia, and the conditions under which each is applicable.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Ohnesorge number is preferred over the Reynolds number in low gravity capillary flows due to its incorporation of surface tension effects.
  • Others argue that while the Reynolds number is not intrinsically wrong, it does not account for surface tension, which is critical in these flows.
  • A participant mentions that the choice of dimensionless group depends on the specific phenomena being studied, suggesting that different problems may require different dimensionless numbers.
  • One participant describes a systematic approach to derive dimensionless groups from governing equations, emphasizing the importance of defining relevant scales for the problem at hand.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the proliferation of dimensionless numbers in chemical engineering, suggesting they may be created for recognition or to facilitate data representation.
  • A participant provides a detailed mathematical formulation related to fluid flow down a wedge, discussing how the Ohnesorge number emerges in their analysis.
  • There is a request for clarification on the formulation of differential equations and boundary conditions related to the discussed problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of using the Reynolds number versus the Ohnesorge number in specific contexts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best practices for selecting dimensionless numbers in capillary flows.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of scaling and the specific conditions of the flow problem, including the small Bond number and the neglect of gravity, which may influence the choice of dimensionless numbers.

  • #61
joshmccraney said:
Would the sides be ##\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_zd\theta##, ##\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_{z+dz}d\theta##, ##\sqrt{g_{zz}}|_\theta dz ##, ##\sqrt{g_{zz}}|_{\theta+d\theta}dz##?
Josh! You're the man! Excellent.

Now we are ready to do a force balance on our little window. In terms of the unit normal u's, what are the in plane tensile forces due to surface tension on the 4 edges of our window (recall that surface tension acts normal to the sides of our window)? (There is also a pressure force acting perpendicular to our window that we'll get to soon)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Chestermiller said:
Josh! You're the man! Excellent.
Thanks!

Chestermiller said:
Now we are ready to do a force balance on our little window. In terms of the unit normal u's, what are the in plane tensile forces due to surface tension on the 4 edges of our window (recall that surface tension acts normal to the sides of our window)? (There is also a pressure force acting perpendicular to our window that we'll get to soon)
I think they would be $$\sigma \sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_zd\theta\, \hat u^z\\
\sigma\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_{z+dz}d\theta\, \hat u^z\\
\sigma\sqrt{g_{zz}}|_\theta dz\, \hat u^\theta \\
\sigma\sqrt{g_{zz}}|_{\theta+d\theta}dz\, \hat u^\theta$$
 
  • #63
joshmccraney said:
Thanks!I think they would be $$\sigma \sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_zd\theta\, \hat u^z\\
\sigma\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_{z+dz}d\theta\, \hat u^z\\
\sigma\sqrt{g_{zz}}|_\theta dz\, \hat u^\theta \\
\sigma\sqrt{g_{zz}}|_{\theta+d\theta}dz\, \hat u^\theta$$
Good, except that the ones at evaluated z and theta should be in the negative u directions. Now substitute your equations for the u's into these equations. What do you get?

Given the equations for the differential position vectors along the edges of the window, can you write a vector equation for the area of the window, including the normal vector to the window?
 
  • #64
Chestermiller said:
Good, except that the ones at evaluated z and theta should be in the negative u directions. Now substitute your equations for the u's into these equations. What do you get?

$$\left.-\sigma \sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_z = \left.-\sigma d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_z\\

\left.\sigma\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_{z+dz} = \left.\sigma d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_{z+dz}\\

-\left.\sigma\sqrt{g_{zz}} dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}}\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta} = -\left.\sigma dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta}\\

\left.\sigma\sqrt{g_{zz}} dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}}\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta+d\theta} = \left.\sigma dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta+d\theta}$$

Chestermiller said:
Given the equations for the differential position vectors along the edges of the window, can you write a vector equation for the area of the window, including the normal vector to the window?
I think this would be
$$||\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_zd\theta\, \hat u^z \times \sqrt{g_{zz}}|_\theta dz\, \hat u^\theta|| \hat u^z \times \hat u^\theta = \sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_zd\theta\cdot \sqrt{g_{zz}}|_\theta dz \, \hat u^z \times \hat u^\theta$$
 
  • #65
joshmccraney said:
I think this would be
$$||\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_zd\theta\, \hat u^z \times \sqrt{g_{zz}}|_\theta dz\, \hat u^\theta|| \hat u^z \times \hat u^\theta = \sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}|_zd\theta\cdot \sqrt{g_{zz}}|_\theta dz \, \hat u^z \times \hat u^\theta$$
It's much simpler than this. The area of the would be ##\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z d\theta dz##. So the pressure force acting on the window from inside to outside would be ##p\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z d\theta dz##, where p is the gauge pressure inside the fluid at the interface.
 
  • #66
Chestermiller said:
It's much simpler than this. The area of the would be ##\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z d\theta dz##. So the pressure force acting on the window from inside to outside would be ##p\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z d\theta dz##, where p is the gauge pressure inside the fluid at the interface.
Of course, makes sense! I'm with you. So we've accounted for surface tension and pressure.
 
  • #67
joshmccraney said:
Of course, makes sense! I'm with you. So we've accounted for surface tension and pressure.
Are you saying there are other forces acting on our window?
 
  • #68
Chestermiller said:
Are you saying there are other forces acting on our window?
Well, we're ignoring gravity. Viscous forces though from the side walls, what do you think?
 
  • #69
joshmccraney said:
Well, we're ignoring gravity. Viscous forces though from the side walls, what do you think?
I think that the interface has no mass, so that the gravitational force on the window is zero. The viscous contribution to the normal stress at the interface, when lumped in with the pressure (the shear stress is, of course, zero) might contribute a little, and we should consider that later (although I don't think it would be important). It should be neglected for now.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835
  • #70
I'm with you, and agree with everything you've said so far!
 
  • #71
joshmccraney said:
I'm with you, and agree with everything you've said so far!
OK. Please write down the force balance on the window, and divide by dtheta and dz. What do you get?
 
  • #72
Chestermiller said:
OK. Please write down the force balance on the window, and divide by dtheta and dz. What do you get?
$$
\left.\sigma d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_{z+dz} \left.-\sigma d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_z+
\left.\sigma dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta+d\theta}-\left.\sigma dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta}+
p\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z d\theta dz = \vec 0\\

\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\sigma \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)+
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left(\sigma \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right)+
p\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z = \vec 0
$$

where the rhs is 0 since the membrane does not have any mass. Something doesn't seem right though: the pressure term is the only term that is normal to the surface. If my work above is correct, then there would not be anything to balance it, implying ##p=0##. What do you think?
 
  • #73
joshmccraney said:
$$
\left.\sigma d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_{z+dz} \left.-\sigma d\theta\, \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right|_z+
\left.\sigma dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta+d\theta}-\left.\sigma dz\, \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right|_{\theta}+
p\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z d\theta dz = \vec 0\\

\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\sigma \frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)+
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left(\sigma \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right)+
p\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z = \vec 0
$$

where the rhs is 0 since the membrane does not have any mass. Something doesn't seem right though: the pressure term is the only term that is normal to the surface. If my work above is correct, then there would not be anything to balance it, implying ##p=0##. What do you think?
You can factor out the ##\sigma## from the derivatives. Regarding your question, the spatial derivatives of the coordinate basis vectors ##\hat{a}_{\theta}## and ##\hat{a}_z## along the surface have components normal to the surface. This is what the pressure has to balance.

In anticipation of what we do next, what is the magnitude of the vector ##\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z##?
 
  • #74
From your previous post we have $$\hat{a}_\theta=\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\hat{r}+R\hat{\theta}\tag{3a}$$and$$\hat{a}_z=\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\hat{r}+\hat{z}\tag{3b}\implies \\
\hat{a}_\theta \times \hat{a}_z = \left( \frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\hat{r}+R\hat{\theta} \right) \times \left( \frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\hat{r}+\hat{z} \right)\\
=-R \frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\hat z-\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\hat \theta+R\hat r \implies\\
||\hat{a}_\theta \times \hat{a}_z|| = \sqrt{\left( R \frac{\partial R}{\partial z} \right)^2+\left( \frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta} \right)^2+R^2}$$
Geometrically this would be the area of a window along the surface. Is this what you're looking for?
 
  • #75
joshmccraney said:
From your previous post we have $$\hat{a}_\theta=\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\hat{r}+R\hat{\theta}\tag{3a}$$and$$\hat{a}_z=\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\hat{r}+\hat{z}\tag{3b}\implies \\
\hat{a}_\theta \times \hat{a}_z = \left( \frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\hat{r}+R\hat{\theta} \right) \times \left( \frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\hat{r}+\hat{z} \right)\\
=-R \frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\hat z-\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\hat \theta+R\hat r \implies\\
||\hat{a}_\theta \times \hat{a}_z|| = \sqrt{\left( R \frac{\partial R}{\partial z} \right)^2+\left( \frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta} \right)^2+R^2}$$
Geometrically this would be the area of a window along the surface. Is this what you're looking for?
It's also equal to ##\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta \theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}##. Can you show this?
 
  • #76
Chestermiller said:
It's also equal to ##\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta \theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}##. Can you show this?
I don't think so. I know we've seen that show up a bunch in the denominators. It also looks like a Jacobian, which relates transformed area. How would you show it, or do you have any suggestions on how to start me out?
 
  • #77
joshmccraney said:
I don't think so. I know we've seen that show up a bunch in the denominators. It also looks like a Jacobian, which relates transformed area. How would you show it, or do you have any suggestions on how to start me out?
Here's a hint. The cross product of two vectors is equal to the magnitudes of the two vectors times the sine of the angle between them. The cosine of the angle between two vectors is equal to their dot product divided by the magnitudes of the two vectors. sin^2=1-cos^2
 
  • #78
Chestermiller said:
Here's a hint. The cross product of two vectors is equal to the magnitudes of the two vectors times the sine of the angle between them. The cosine of the angle between two vectors is equal to their dot product divided by the magnitudes of the two vectors. sin^2=1-cos^2
Beautiful. We have $$|\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z| = |\hat a_\theta|| \hat a_z|\sin\theta\\
= |\hat a_\theta|| \hat a_z|\sqrt{1-\cos^2\theta}\\
=|\hat a_\theta|| \hat a_z|\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\hat a_\theta\cdot\hat a_z}{|\hat a_\theta|| \hat a_z|}\right)^2}\\
=\sqrt{(|\hat a_\theta|| \hat a_z|)^2-(\hat a_\theta\cdot \hat a_z)^2}\\
=\sqrt{\sqrt{\hat a_\theta\cdot\hat a_\theta}^2\sqrt{\hat a_z\cdot\hat a_z}^2-(\hat a_\theta\cdot \hat a_z)^2}\\
=\sqrt{g_{\theta\theta}g_{zz}-g_{\theta z}^2}$$
 
  • #79
OK. So, now going back to post #72, we have:
$$\sigma \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)+
\sigma \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left( \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right)+
p\hat{N}= \hat{0}$$where ##\hat{N}=\hat{a}_{\theta}\times \hat{a}_z##. The next step is to determine the pressure p by dotting the equation with ##\hat{N}## to obtain:
$$\sigma \hat{N}\centerdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)+
\sigma \hat{N}\centerdot \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left( \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right)+
p(g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2)= 0$$
See if you can show that this is the same as:
$$\sigma \left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z}+
\sigma \left( \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial \theta}+
p(g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2)= 0$$
 
  • #80
Chestermiller said:
See if you can show that this is the same as:
$$\sigma \left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z}+
\sigma \left( \frac{g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z} {\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}} \right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial \theta}+
p(g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2)= 0$$
I have no clue how you did this. What I'm thinking, though it doesn't seem applicable here, is if you rotate a vector ##\vec a## by a given amount and dot it with ##\vec b## it will be the same as if you rotate ##\vec b## by the given amount and dot it with ##\vec a##. But the derivatives aren't rotations. Honestly, to me this looks like dark magic.
 
  • #81
What is the dot product of N with the expressions in parenthesis?
 
  • #82
From the second to last equation in post 79, I'll consider the far left term (dropping the constant ##\sigma##). The product rule implies
$$\frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z} \centerdot \left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)=\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left[\hat{N}\centerdot\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)\right] -\hat{N}\centerdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)$$
By the definition of ##\hat N## we have
$$\hat{N}\centerdot\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right) = (\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)\\
=\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} (\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}(\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right).
$$
Notice ## (\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot \hat a_z = 0## and ##(\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot\hat a_\theta = 0## since the dot product of two orthogonal vectors is zero. Thus the product inside the ##z## derivative from the first equation is zero, and we are left with

$$\frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z} \centerdot \left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)= -\hat{N}\centerdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)
$$
Then I agree with your final equation in post 79 except that I think the two ##\sigma## terms are off by a sign. What do you think?
 
  • #83
joshmccraney said:
From the second to last equation in post 79, I'll consider the far left term (dropping the constant ##\sigma##). The product rule implies
$$\frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z} \centerdot \left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)=\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left[\hat{N}\centerdot\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)\right] -\hat{N}\centerdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)$$
By the definition of ##\hat N## we have
$$\hat{N}\centerdot\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right) = (\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)\\
=\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} (\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}(\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right).
$$
Notice ## (\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot \hat a_z = 0## and ##(\hat a_\theta \times \hat a_z)\centerdot\hat a_\theta = 0## since the dot product of two orthogonal vectors is zero. Thus the product inside the ##z## derivative from the first equation is zero, and we are left with

$$\frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z} \centerdot \left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)= -\hat{N}\centerdot \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta}{\sqrt{g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2}}\right)
$$
Then I agree with your final equation in post 79 except that I think the two ##\sigma## terms are off by a sign. What do you think?
I don't think so, but we can check that later. So, from all this, if you do all the arithmetic, what equation do you get for the pressure p? We can compare notes.
 
  • #84
I get (using the negative result I got) $$p = \frac{\sigma}{\left(g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2\right)^{3/2}} \left[ \left(g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta\right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z}+
\left( g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z \right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial \theta}\right]
$$
Nothing special here except simple algebra.
 
  • #85
joshmccraney said:
I get (using the negative result I got) $$p = \frac{\sigma}{\left(g_{zz}g_{\theta\theta}-g_{\theta z}^2\right)^{3/2}} \left[ \left(g_{\theta\theta} \hat a_z-g_{\theta z}\hat a_\theta\right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial z}+
\left( g_{zz}\hat{a}_\theta - g_{\theta z}\hat{a}_z \right)\centerdot \frac{\partial \hat{N}}{\partial \theta}\right]
$$
Nothing special here except simple algebra.
I meant to flesh out N, and do the dot products.
 
  • #86
Chestermiller said:
I meant to flesh out N, and do the dot products.
hahahahhaha I thought so! To be clear, we're talking about taking the coordinates back into ##z## and ##r##, right? I'll wait to crunch the numbers until you confirm. I know sometimes you have tricks up your sleeve.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
joshmccraney said:
hahahahhaha I thought so! To be clear, we're talking about taking the coordinates back into ##z## and ##r##, right? I'll wait to crunch the numbers until you confirm. I know sometimes you have tricks up your sleeve.
I'll try to write out my result so we can compare.
 
  • #88
OK, here's what I got for the pressure (if I did the arithmetic correctly). I corrected the sign error that you pointed out. Please check my results:

$$p=\frac{1}{R\left[1+\left[\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}-\frac{\left[1+\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\right]\frac{\partial^2 R}{\partial z^2}-2\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial ^2R}{\partial \theta \partial z}+\left[1+\left(\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\right)\right]^2\frac{1}{R^2}\frac{\partial^2R}{\partial \theta^2}-\frac{1}{R}\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2}{\left[1+\left[\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}}$$
 
Last edited:
  • #89
Chestermiller said:
OK, here's what I got for the pressure (if I did the arithmetic correctly). I corrected the sign error that you pointed out. Please check my results:

$$p=\frac{1}{R\left[1+\left[\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}-\frac{\left[1+\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\right]\frac{\partial^2 R}{\partial z^2}-2\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial ^2R}{\partial \theta \partial z}+\left[1+\left(\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\right)\right]^2\frac{1}{R^2}\frac{\partial^2R}{\partial \theta^2}-\frac{1}{R}\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2}{\left[1+\left[\frac{\partial R}{\partial z}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial \theta}\right)^2\right]^{3/2}}$$
Hmmmm I'm not getting exactly this. Did you compute this result in Mathematica? If so I can send you my notebook. I plugged your result and mine in Mathematica and I am not getting zero when fully simplifying the difference of them both.

If you have Mathematica, let me know and I'll send you my notebook. If you don't have Mathematica, can we agree on the following components:
components.png

where ##N_z = \partial_z\hat N## and ##N_\theta = \partial_\theta\hat N##. Note vectors are denoted as ##\{a,b,c\} \equiv a\hat r + b\hat \theta + c\hat z##. Everything else is self explanatory I think.
 

Attachments

  • components.png
    components.png
    17.5 KB · Views: 846
  • #90
joshmccraney said:
Hmmmm I'm not getting exactly this. Did you compute this result in Mathematica? If so I can send you my notebook. I plugged your result and mine in Mathematica and I am not getting zero when fully simplifying the difference of them both.

If you have Mathematica, let me know and I'll send you my notebook. If you don't have Mathematica, can we agree on the following components:View attachment 220353
where ##N_z = \partial_z\hat N## and ##N_\theta = \partial_\theta\hat N##. Note vectors are denoted as ##\{a,b,c\} \equiv a\hat r + b\hat \theta + c\hat z##. Everything else is self explanatory I think.
I confirm all those components.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K